Politics, Law, and Ohio Elections

File this one under politics vs. law. From Ryan J. Reilly at TPM:

A federal judge sided with the Obama campaign on Friday and ruled that Ohio made an "arbitrary" decision when it took away early-voting rights for most voters but carved out a special exemption for military and overseas voters.

Ohio allows "early voting" in the three days prior to the election. The legislature acted to abolish early voting, except for uniformed and overseas citizens. The Obama Administration sued and it just won a victory in court.

The Romney Campaign attacked the Administration on the grounds that it was trying to stop military personal from voting. This may have been good politics but it was bad logic. Whichever side won, military voters would get to vote three days early. If the Administration had lost, those voters (and overseas voters) would be the only people to enjoy that privilege.

It is pretty clear what the strategy was behind the change in law. Most of the people who vote early are apparently inclined to vote Democrat. Ending early voting for most voters doesn't necessarily mean those folks won't vote, but it might mean that some of them won't vote. Military voters are probably more inclined to vote Republican. This would be unlikely to result in more than a small advantage for the GOP, but in a very close election it might make the difference.

Politically speaking, it is hard to defend the change in the law. Manipulating the election laws to benefit one party over another is hardly unusual in American politics. See gerrymandering. It is hard to see it as anything other than an unfortunate consequence of the system.

Legally speaking, this looks like a very dubious result. There is no reason why the election laws can't make special allowances for certain classes of voters. Disabled voters, for example, might be given more time to vote or special machines. Uniformed citizens might be allowed to vote early or even late, as a concession to the sacrifices they make. A state might provide ballots in languages other than English but they don't have to provide ballots in all languages or ballots specially designed for the learning impaired.

What if Ohio had not had a general early voting rule, but had created one specifically for citizens in uniform? Such a regulation would make plenty of sense and I am guessing would have been more difficult to challenge. It would have resulted in exactly the same situation. The logical implication of the district court decision is that any advantage given to one group of voters but not to others is a violation of constitutional rights. That looks to me like a bad rule.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

Sometimes, Ken: it's like you can almost be lucid. More at DemocracyNow!

http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2012/8/28/ex_ohio_secretary_of_state_ken

[Bill Fleming]

Recall, Ken, that the SCOTUS appointed Bush the Lesser POTUS via a similar ruling. Under the 14th Amendment every voters rights must be equally protected. There's more to it, I know, but that was the essence of the Bush v Gore decision, yes?

[joe arrigo]

Scores of people have died to give us this right to vote. The nefarious attempt by Republican led states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc., to suppress the vote is treasonous, as well as throwing the country under the bus with their sinister plot to stonewall every bill denying the President any achievement.

[larry kurtz]

"Breaking News: Federal Judge Orders Ohio to Restore Weekend Early Voting in Ohio Weekend Before Election Day"

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39463

[Donald Pay]

I don't like early voting in general. It's driven by the cash heavy top-of-the-ticket races and it hurts the lesser races, many of which are sparingly covered by the press until the week before an election.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: while I disagree with your view of Bush v. Gore, I concur on the equal protection principle. However, I don't think it violates equal protection to provide special voting devices to disabled voters just because I don't get one. Likewise, I don't think it violates equal protection to make special allowances for military persons who may face difficulties that I do not face.

[Ken Blanchard]

Larry: I am pleased that you are pleased. If you ever say something that steps outside the box you are in, I will return the favor.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: prepare yourself for a shock. We are in complete agreement on this issue.

[Bill Fleming]

I guess I'm not tracking you very well, KB. On the one hand you say you are opposed to early voting, period (agreeing with Mr. Pay), even as you say you're for it, but only for certain people, but then you say that you're all about the 14th Amendment and equal protection under the law.

You're all over the map on this one, brother.

I'm just sayin'.

Is that your GOP ambivalence acting up again?

If so, I feel your pain.

Nothing worse than gnawing internal conflict. ;^)

[larry kurtz]

The GOP is scared spitless in Ohio: focused on removing Gary Johnson from the ballot

http://www.ideastream.org/news/feature/48828?

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: so you think that equal protection means treating everyone precisely the same way. You might win me over on that one, my friend. I just didn't guess that you were vehemently opposed to affirmative action. After all, the whole rational for that policy is that equal protection requires treating different groups differently in order to equalize the playing field. I also wouldn't have guessed that you were opposed to special handicap access for disabled voters. I learn new things about you every day.

ps. "gnawing internal conflict" has another name. It's called "thinking."

[larry kurtz]

Ohio SOS backs down to court, no appeal:

http://woub.org/2012/09/07/hustead-backs-down-early-voting-ruling